Hi,
I'd like to bump this question...I still feel this is odd -- and strikes me as either a mistake in several papers or something I fundamentally do not understand and hence would really appreciate if someone could explain the strong incongruity in how I'm thinking about this with what I'm being reassured as correct. The fact that these papers standardize the spmT images makes me think that what they really wanted to do was take the con images (the Pearson correlation coefficients being standardized beta estimates), and I was explained that the spmT images are the strength of the connectivity -- but I see it as the T-stats and hence the repeatability of finding the estimated strengths of the connectivity. If majority rules or even just by expertise, there is something wrong with my assumptions and/or line of thinking as someone who does not work with rs-fMRI and this is an established protocol that has churned out several published papers (hence approved by expert reviewers) with a couple under revision.
Many thanks!
Gina
|